Managing Technology (JAL May 2014)
Re-framing librarians' identities and assumptions around IT
Corresponding Author:
Pamela Carson,
Concordia University, Montreal, QC, pamela.carson@concordia.ca
Column Editor:
Geoffrey Little,
Concordia University, Montreal, QC, geoffrey.little@concordia.ca
Librarianship and information technology (IT) have a symbiotic relationship – or do they? While
librarianship is dominated by women, women remain underrepresented in IT. As our profession
becomes increasingly digital, it is time to examine our gendered identities and assumptions
around IT. Both librarianship and computing are subjected to strong stereotyping, so there may
be misunderstandings and assumptions on both sides. We might try to ignore stereotypes, but
these oversimplified--yet fixed--ideas can be detrimental and can have real effects on
performance and recruitment to the profession. The damage done by stereotypes can be
countered by finding role models that do not adhere to the stereotype and finding evidence to
refute the stereotype.
Only 20% of professional librarians in the United States are male and only 12 percent are nonCaucasian (American Library Association, 2012). This is not reflective of the diversity of the
American population, which is 49.2% male and 37% non-Caucasian (United States Census
Bureau, 2012). Librarianship has an underrepresentation problem and more needs to be done to
recruit both males and non-Caucasians into librarianship. Meanwhile, computing struggles with
its own gender and racial imbalance; women, African Americans, Hispanics and Native
Americans are considered underrepresented in computer science. More than 80% of computer
science students and professionals are white or Asian and more than 70% are male (National
Science Foundation, 2012).
Merging of computing and librarianship
If librarianship is 80% female and computing is 70% male, what does this mean for library
technology? Technology is essential to many parts of academic librarianship, from integrated
library systems to digital humanities. Librarianship and computing continue to converge,
blurring the lines between disciplines. The library, in essence, is an “internetworked information
technology made up of both human and material components” (Downey, 2010) and cannot be
divorced from computing. West (2007) stated that, as a librarian, she has encountered many
technology advocates, but “they are the exception rather than the rule.” A recent survey of new
librarians found that almost all saw technology as an important component in library and
information science (LIS) education; however, less than half could see themselves working in a
technical profession in librarianship (Del Bosque & Lampert, 2009). Even more recently,
Emanuel (2013) in her study of “digital native” librarians, assumed by many to have more
advanced technology skills, showed that this population is actually most comfortable with
technologies that are used (e.g., Microsoft Office, Web 2.0, or mobile devices) rather than
technologies used to create content (e.g., programming and web programming languages, among
others). In addition, these digital natives did not say technology was their reason for wanting to
become librarians. Hoping that newly-hired “digital natives” will effortlessly move in with
technology skills that the other staff lack (Emanuel, 2013; Farkas, 2007) will likely lead to
disappointment.
Librarians’ role in technology is currently poorly defined. When it comes to library systems, for
example, is our role to simply buy a commercial product but not participate in its development?
As the need for IT in libraries increases and merges with our services, how much of our work do
we end up giving to someone else? Outsourcing or handing over library technology to those
unfamiliar with librarianship will become untenable eventually. How will it be possible to
properly communicate our needs and the needs of our users to IT staff that do not have a
thorough knowledge of librarianship? When we ask for something and are told that it cannot be
done, how will we know this for certain? How will we even be able to come up with innovative
ideas without a curiosity and a comprehensive understanding of the possibilities of IT? We
cannot assume that the development of library IT does not require knowledge of library science
(Farkas, 2007), or the inverse, that library science does not require knowledge of IT.
Stereotypes
Librarianship has been viewed as women’s work since the days of Dewey (Downey, 2010). The
commonly held stereotype is that of “an older woman, her hair tight in a bun, wearing glasses, a
cardigan, and sensible (meaning ugly) shoes, who wouldn’t know a computer from a cat (of
which she owns many)” (Kneale, 2009). Particularly harmful is the stereotype that librarians are
no longer needed in the digital age because everything is online. Some aspects of libraries have
been romanticized like the collections of leather-bound volumes, the rolling staircases, and the
card catalogue. Contrast this with the reality of academic libraries staffed by diverse
professionals who deliver digital initiatives, technology programs, and new and novel ways to
support users and research.
Computing, like librarianship, also has its (highly masculine) stereotypes with roots in popular
culture, particularly film: the nerd (Revenge of the Nerds), the hacker (Hackers), and now the
“brogrammer” (The Social Network). The “brogrammer” stereotype has sexist undertones and
media outlets have been keen to write about sexist incidents, particularly in tech start-up
companies and tech conferences (Raja, 2012). Upon closer examination, the ultra-masculine
image of computing is not entirely representative of actual practice (Misa, 2010; Shafer, 2010).
Mature tech companies, like Google and Microsoft, are not tolerant of “brogrammer antics”
(Raja, 2012). Tennant (2012), who frequently speaks and writes about library technology, has
also written about gender and states that we need to “[r]ecruit and support women who are
interested. More women are interested in a tech career than care to survive the cultural gauntlet
to make it. We […] can help to change this.”
Negative sociocultural stereotypes can influence how a person performs (Shih, Pittinsky, &
Ambady, 1999; Shapiro & Williams, 2012). Stereotypes can be insidious: even in neutral
situations, self-as-source stereotypes have a real effect on performance (Shapiro & Williams,
2012). For example, it is plausible, based on previous research about women’s lowered
performance in STEM fields based on self-stereotyping, that librarians may also be taking
negative stereotypes to heart thereby stunting their interest and growth in computing. More
specifically, because the majority of librarians are women, it would also be possible that some
are self-stereotyping themselves out of IT because it does not fit with society’s female gender
stereotype. Those starting to learn more about computing – especially the creating aspects – are
particularly vulnerable to the stereotypes because beginner’s mistakes might confirm in one’s
own mind that the stereotype is true.
There are ways of buffering the effect of stereotypes on performance. By finding evidence that
the stereotype is wrong, those who previously self-stereotyped can increase their interest
(Cheryan, Plaut, Handron, & Hudson, 2013). Role models who do not conform to stereotypes
have a powerful effect on the self-concept of those who previously self-stereotyped themselves
out of a field (Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011). It would be interesting to test
different interventions with librarians who self-stereotype out of the computing domain such as
identifying with role models who break the stereotype or looking critically at the stereotype to
find its falsities.
Those who self-stereotype are even more susceptible to damage from discouraging comments or
actions based on the stereotypical beliefs of others. Philip Guo (2014), assistant professor of
computer science at the University of Rochester, stated: “ask any computer science major who
isn't from a majority demographic (i.e., white or Asian male), and I guarantee that he or she has
encountered discouraging comments such as ‘You know, not everyone is cut out for computer
science.’ They probably still remember the words and actions that have hurt the most, even
though those making the remarks often aren't trying to harm.” He likened seemingly innocuous
comments like these to “thousands of micro-inequities” that have a lasting effect on one’s
motivation to endure in the field.
Breaking stereotypes
Women in computing can find female role models with a little bit of research. From Ada
Lovelace, considered the very first computer programmer, to Marissa Mayer, the president and
CEO of Yahoo!, there are many examples of female IT leaders. The history is rich with examples
of women programmers and their successes. In fact, women were the first “computers”: handcomputing to organize complex problems in order to compute them (Abbate, 2003). Given this
history, Misa (2010) states “it’s strange that anyone would think that women don’t like
computing.”
Librarians commonly say that little to no formal IT training was offered as part of their LIS
education (Farkas, 2007; Engard & Singer Gordon, 2012). It is not reasonable to expect that an
LIS education will fully prepare librarians to be tech innovators. While there are examples of IT
innovations in LIS education, with the wide range of topics in librarianship and/or information
science needing to be covered, only the fundamentals might be included in some of the many
aspects of computing from programming logic to hardware. It has been argued technology
should be integrated into every course (Farkas, 2007), but better results might be obtained via
self-directed problem-based learning.
How IT workers are learning
Problem-based learning is a good way to learn about computing. Brown (2008) states that open
source programmers are learning through practice: watching the work of their peers, defending
their own work, and participating in community discussions about problems. Attitude is
important also, and IT workers with self-directed learning orientations were better suited to
learning on the job (Gijbels et al., 2012). For its IT workers, Google tries to foster a “capacity
identity”– a belief in one’s capacity to learn and improve – and encourages programmers to find
role models and copy them (Johnson & Senges, 2011).
Librarians are struggling with large workloads made up of various types of tasks from serving
our patrons to developing subject matter expertise to administrative work. If a library prioritizes
IT skill development for its employees then time allowances will need to be made for learning.
There are core technology competencies that every librarian should know (common software,
word processing, basic web editing), but learning about more advanced topics with the goal of
creating new library systems or applications should be considered scholarly activity and the
appropriate opportunities or release time should be granted.
In addition to finding role models in computing history, there are many other supports for
entering into the IT field. Free and inexpensive introductory programming and computer science
courses can increasingly be found online (like Codecademy and Udacity) and online courses and
communities for specific groups exist too (like Girl Develop It and Black Girls Code). It may be
argued, however, that exclusive groups are problematic. The positive gains must outweigh the
negative costs to rationalize creating a group apart. While these gender-segregated groups may
make their members feel at ease, they may also inadvertently contribute to the marginalization of
certain issues and leave out others who may benefit, and, at worst, be different versions of the
“old boys’ club.”
Looking forward
Librarianship and IT have a relationship worth examining. Information technology is arguably
the most effective tool we have now to advance knowledge and our success in achieving our
goals depends on how we leverage it. Librarians’ assumptions and gendered identities around IT
may be preventing us from using this tool effectively. If only a small percentage of a library’s
staff is willing to engage with technology to not only use, but create methods of attaining our
goals, then we are underachieving. By giving the ever-increasing work of creating, implementing
and supporting library IT to non-librarians, we are expecting non-librarians to practice our
profession. Through closely examining our beliefs about IT we can find whether we are limiting
ourselves based on self-stereotyping. We know as librarians how pernicious stereotypes are for
our profession – perhaps we are misunderstanding another discipline and thereby preventing
ourselves from engaging fully with it.
References
Abbate, J. (2003). Women and gender in the history of computing. IEEE Annals of the History of
Computing, 25(4), 4-8. doi: 10.1109/MAHC.2003.1253885
American Library Association. (2012). Diversity counts. Retrieved on February 26, 2014 from
http://www.ala.org/offices/sites/ala.org.offices/files/content/diversity/diversitycounts/diver
sitycountstables2012.pdf
Brown, J. S. (2008). Foreword. In T. Iyoshi and M.S.V. Kumar (Eds.) Opening up education:
The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open
knowledge. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., & Handron, C. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered
media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69, 58-71.
doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0296-x
Del Bosque, D. C., & Lampert, C. (2009). A chance of storms: New librarians navigating
technology tempests. Technical Services Quarterly, 26(4), 261-286.
doi:10.1080/07317130802678878
Downey, G. (2010). Gender and computing in the push-button library. In T. J. Misa (Ed.),
Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing (pp. 143-162). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Emanuel, J. (2013). Digital native librarians, technology skills, and their relationship with
technology. Information Technology and Libraries, 32(3), 20-33. doi:
10.6017/ital.v32i3.3811
Engard, N. C., & Singer Gordon, R. (2012). The accidental systems librarian (2nd ed.). Medford,
NJ: Information Today, Inc.
Farkas, M. G. (2007). Training librarians for the future: Integrating technology into LIS
education. In R. Singer Gordon (Ed.), Information tomorrow: Reflections on technology
and the future of public and academic libraries (pp. 193-201). Medford, NJ: Information
Today, Inc.
Gijbels, D., Raemdonck, I., Vervecken, D., & Van Herck, J. (2012). Understanding work-related
learning: The case of ICT workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(6), 416-429. doi:
10.1108/13665621211250315
Guo, P. (2014, January 15). Silent technical privilege. Slate. Retrieved on February 21, 2014
from
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/programmer_privilege_as_a
n_asian_male_computer_science_major_everyone_gave.html
Johnson, M., & Senges, M. (2010). Learning to be a programmer in a complex organization: A
case study on practice-based learning during the onboarding process at Google. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 22(3), 180-194. doi:10.1108/13665621011028620
Kneale, R. (2009). You don’t look like a librarian: Shattering stereotypes and creating positive
new images in the internet age. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
Misa, T. J. (2010). Gender codes: Defining the problem. In T. J. Misa (Ed.), Gender codes: Why
women are leaving computing (pp. 3-24). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
National Science Foundation. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering. Retrieved on February 22, 2014 from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf
Raja, T. (2012, April 26). “Gangbang interviews” and “bikini shots”: Silicon Valley’s
brogrammer problem. Mother Jones. Retrieved on February 21, 2014 from
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/04/silicon-valley-brogrammer-culture-sexistsxsw
Shafer, L. (2010). Foreword. In T. J. Misa (Ed.), Gender codes: Why women are leaving
computing (pp. ix-xi). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’
and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 175-183. doi:
10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and
shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80-83. doi:10.1111/14679280.00111
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using
ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255-270.
doi:10.1037/a0021385.
Tennant, R. (2012, October 13). Fostering female technology leadership in libraries. The Digital
Shift. Retrieved on February 21, 2014 from http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/10/roytennant-digital-libraries/fostering-female-technology-leadership-in-libraries/
United States Census Bureau. (2014). State & county quickfacts: USA. Retrieved on February
26, 2014 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
West, J. (2007). Technophobia, technostress, and technorealism. In R. Singer Gordon (Ed.),
Information tomorrow: Reflections on technology and the future of public and academic
libraries (pp. 203-215). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.